Subjects of Interest

Contributer Pages

Friday, December 29, 2006

I suppose this is because I'm sort of a serial self-improver. This can be annoying to others, I know. The key to making resolutions work for you - not just now, but anytime of the year - is to be realistic and make sure they're measurable. I think those two qualifying characteristics are the difference between success and failure in changing something about yourself.

So what do I resolve this year? I resolve that I'm going to not let my professional life influence my personal life. That should be an easy one to measure - ask me how happy my family is anytime in the coming year, and the answer will be a pretty good indication of how well I'm doing. Being a good husband and father are top priorities.

I resolve to watch less TV and read more. I'll keep track and let you know how many books I read in 2007.

I resolve to jump in with both feet to more political activities. If you've been reading here, you know what I'm going to be doing in the coming year. I hope that I can reach out to more people and share my - our - philosophy on government.

I resolve to try and make reading the Bible a habit. I had a good stretch this year when I was reading it every day, but I'll have to work at it again.

Of course, I'll work to exceed the successes I had this year and eliminate the disappointments.

Here's a toast to you, Dear Reader: may the coming year bring blessings innumerable, good health, happiness, and of course, success. Enjoy the coming holiday, and as always, be safe.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

We're going to be instituting comment verification on this blog. You'll just need to type in whatever letters or characters that you're prompted to enter. That there is such a thing as comment spam just... floors me.

And am I alone in thinking that surely there must be a circle in hell for spammers? Is there a bigger waste of time, talent, or money?

Daniel Webster adds:

Sorry for the minor inconvenience this presents the posters, but we've experienced a problem lately which we figure called for nippin' in the bud. Additionally, and particularly for all you "anonymous" posters, you'll note the following information beneath your posts - "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author." Simply stated, if you choose to post as "anonymous," you gotta get the content by me first, so it dang sure better be worthwhile as well as clean.

Friday, December 15, 2006

It was no dark and stormy night. It could not have been, for Ebenezer would otherwise had been much more alert and on guard. The only things stirring outside were the familiar wind, the autumn leaves, and the malevolent designs of an uninvited guest.

As Sara closed down the house for the night, Ebenezer was making his rounds, tucking in his children one by one. He began with the eldest, Horatio, whose bravery and marksmanship earlier that week had single-handedly saved the herd and won the family three of the most prized pelts the county had seen in their generation. His father’s face still beamed with pride as he moved on to his second, Ephraim, who, was blessed with a vocal acuity that had already earned him renown for his ability to sing as dulcetly as he could carry a message from one hamlet to the other without taking a step—but everyone was also aware of his running prowess, as well. Third and last was little Abigail, who was already being tended to by her mother; the sight of the two loveliest of creatures was simply too wonderful for Ebenezer to put into words.

A second-generation immigrant, Ebenezer had grown weary of the depressing influences of the city and had ventured west with the simple goal of living free. The desire to dwell, as his ancestors, in the hills was strong in him, so he did not stop traveling until he had reached a modestly mountainous region, happily populated with a few like-minded native dwellers who welcomed him to their small community. His self-sufficient independence earned him much respect among the people and won him the heart of the blacksmith’s daughter, Sara. They were wed five years to the day of his arrival, and produced the three children mentioned above in the next seven. The independence by which Ebenezer lived would be put to the test on this night of his twentieth year in the mountains.

Suddenly, and in precise compliance with his training (and not a little instinct), the voice of Ephraim was heard, obviously on the very loud setting, “MOMMY!” He had seen through the slightly ajar doorway to his room, a shape moving away from a window that had been left open, curtains blowing as they never normally would at this time of the year. Ebenezer, in the same instant, scolded himself, pulled the shotgun from beneath Abigail’s crib, and handed it to Sara before jumping into the master bedroom to prepare himself for battle. The shadowy shape immediately knew the jig was up and that he had to act fast, just in case there were more than the loud voice and its mother to deal with. To his great misfortune, there were.

Making his way swiftly toward where he though was an eight-year-old boy’s room, he was brought to a sudden and complete stop by the unmistakable sound of a hand-held firearm being prepared to fire, and the sound did not come from a distance of any more than a span. The image of what modern observers might describe as a pre-pubescent Clint Eastwood—yet with the concentration and scowl of the middle-aged version of the same—materialized before him; and between he and the focused, young subject was the remarkably steady business end of a Colt 45 (or other handgun to be named later), open for business. But where was that accursed light originating? “Hold your fire, boy.” The intruder needn’t have wondered long about that as the soft but urgent whisper of a grown and angry man behind him informed him that he had indeed selected the wrong house to invade. Ebenezer, brandishing a lantern and a hatchet, mercifully turned backwards, loomed behind him and ended the intruder’s short-lived venture with one well-placed stroke.

________________________________

What, if any, is the role of the state on the issue of illegal immigration? It is often bandied about that the state and local police should butt out of it because it’s a federal issue. To that I say, Nuts!Consider, in the above story, that Ebenezer is a type of the federal government, and his children types of the states. Like the federal government, it is the responsibility of the father to guard and defend the whole of the property from intruders, whether they intend to steal, kill, destroy, or even get a job…the law of the house is clearly posted: “No Trespassing, period.” (or, as I’ve stated earlier somewhere, “…comma, ‘period,’ period”). It’s clearly within reason for the reader to infer that the rules of the house are that no one is allowed—whether a member of the family or otherwise—to steal, kill, or destroy anything either in the house or on the premises except in self-defense. From time to time, there will be crafty scoundrels who thwart the father’s effort to keep them out. When such scoundrels do make it into one of the boys’ rooms, he will then have to deal with at least one of the boys…in addition to the holy hell that is still overdue in coming down upon his head by the hand of the father.

But in a world where the father does nothing to stop the intrusion, the boys are free to handle the intruder as meanly as they see fit, which is not necessarily as humanely as the more attentive father might have been (instead of a mere debilitating shot to the knees, the boy might miss the knees and hit—or deliberately aim for—the crotch or the temple).

And then, go on to consider what abject injustice it would have been for the father to suddenly take the gun out of his own son’s hand just as the intruder is about to do untold evil either to him or his mother, scolding the boy for being racist.

As per usual, kind reader, your comments are more than welcome—they are requested.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

First, please say a prayer for the families who lost loved ones in the tragic shooting yesterday evening in Chicago. That Richard Daley and the Chicago City Council have banned handguns in the city somehow didn't deter the guy who destroyed several families last night. One can only guess if the result might have been different if Illinois had concealed carry laws, but if I'm the shooter, I'm thinking twice about it. The Chicago Tribune reports that the perpetrator was actually escorted by a security guard to the offices. I'm sure that we haven't heard the last of the story.

Second, courtesy of the Federalist Society, you might enjoy this link. I haven't checked it out, but I've heard Scalia speak before and he's enjoyable, to say the least.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

I first heard a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show call the ISG just this, and I liked it so much I had to adopt it.

So here's what I got to thinking with respect to the ISG. Bush knows Baker really well, and the results of the report are a surprise to no one (if you actually meet someone who is surprised you really ought to have them checked into a hospital). So, why? Why go through all of this? What's the point? I've got my theories, and the one I've been batting back and forth like some sort of really awesome cat playing with a ball of string is this: Bush and Rove are outflanking the surrender monkeys. Sort of like how the House Republicans demanded a withdrawal vote on Iraq a while back that was defeated something like 10,000 to 2 (hyperbole, people).

All Bush hears is how we're losing, victory isn't an option, we need to withdraw, I mean, re-deploy the troops (which Jean-Francois Kerry actually said; so in addition to botching jokes he also botches party talking-points - and they wanted this guy to be President?), and he says: OK, I warned you not to mess with Texas, so tell me what you've got.

We can all see the ISG's recommendations for what they are: more foolish ideas that result in America losing.

Here's a thought, and you can play along at home. Bush gathered all of those big brains to come up with ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out. I figure the readership here is easily... three times as smart as those dullards. So, I'm commissioning you, dear Reader, to tell me what our strategy should be in Iraq to win (which wasn't the scope of the ISG, by the way).

Dust off your thinking caps and fire away. I'll compile the recommendations and send them to Bush and then we'll see some results.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

It has come to our attentions, thanks to you dear readers, that in our numerous submissions of an alternative and superior approach to government reform we have yet to offer a clearly defined singular explanation of what that alternative approach is and what it means; that although we've reduced our approach under a simple, easily recognizable and singular term, we have yet to reduce the idea under a clear, concise, and easily referenced explanation. We shall seek to rectify this situation in this post, and in others should this one prove inadequate the important task. As always, dear reader, your feedback is vital to the task of our articulating our position in the clearest terms possible: the process of refinement may well be said to hold the key to providing a truly superior product.

While we shall not attempt to define a balanced approach to government reform in every particular - an exercise that would be as impossible as it is unwise - we do recognize that an overall explanation and understanding of the idea of balanced government is indeed necessary and warranted, and completely within the purview of our overall mission. Once more, my friends, we would direct your attentions to the archival posts dedicated to this particular subject as part and parcel of developing a better understanding of the idea of balanced reform. As has been said, these posts in particular have generated a good deal of dialogue and debate on the subject, and that debate in itself is fairly instructional as to what we mean by the term Balance, or as Mr. Tams so aptly puts it: "the Cornerstone of Federalism."

One such post is entitled: "Why Libertarians have it wrong." In this particular piece, Mr. Tams puts together a reasonable argument in favor of Balanced Government as a means to an end generally sought by the idea of libertarianism - a return to limited government. As Tams explains: while limited government is a fine goal, it is indeed a goal; not a strategy. Let us momentarily pause here to reiterate, our strategy or means for reforming this government can be reduced under one overarching and common theme - Balanced Government. But what does this mean?...

By "Balanced Government" we intend a return to the original balance of political powers, and the balanceddistribution of those powers among the several branches, levels and spheres of our government. Herein you will note, dear reader, a twofold objective: 1. Proper balance in the distribution of political powers among the several branches of our government, and 2. Proper balance in the distribution of those political powers among the various levels and spheres of government. The idea is simply this - achieve the goals of limited and overall legitimate and effective government through the means of a wide distribution of the powers of government among the various levels and spheres of same. We submit that the closer to the individual American government is, the more involved in the political process is the individual American likely to be....as a general rule, of course: The closer to the individual government is, the closer to government is the individual...

Do pause to reflect on that thought for a moment. It has a nice ring to it no doubt, but think on it awhile. If the individual is close to his government; that is, if he is aware of the general (and certain particular) workings of his government, not to mention what it is doing or is likely to do under a given scenario, and etc., then he is much more likely to be more politically aware, and more politically activated. In other words, he will take particular care to protect and defend his true interests under a balanced scenario. And his general interests are the same as his neighbor's interests, incidentally. And it works the same way in the inverse. The closer to the individual government is, the more aware government is of the individual's needs, his wants, what his priorities are, and so on and so forth. Now, I recognize that this is a rather simple explanation of a rather complex idea. But I like simple; it suits me very well. And I'm in no way attempting to thwart your own imaginative process here. Indeed, quite to the contrary.

...And while government power becomes more widely distributed among the levels and spheres, so too will individual Americans, being closer to the functions of government themselves, begin to experience in a more personal way the impact or effects of bad (and good) governmental policies instituted over the governed. The governed under a balanced scenario would be defined, and confined, more strictly to those individuals finding themselves under this and that particular sphere and level of government. This is what we mean by "Balanced Government." It is fundamentally an approach which seeks to re-establish the Constitutional boundaries originally confining the national government in particular to a clear and definite sphere of operation. In so doing, the lower levels of government take on more constitutionally consistent responsibilities thus bringing "government" ever closer to the people themselves where it may be more finely adjusted to the unique circumstances and needs of those more localized governed to whom it is confined. Therefore, and by these very principles, the balanced method of government reform, in theory or put into actual practice, appears to me to be a top-down, as opposed to a bottom-up approach. It also appears to take on an external to internal kind of a quality. Not too awful long ago those facts might well have sealed the fate of balanced government to my own mind. However, my investigation into the matter has convinced me that not only is this possible, but that it is also quite appropriate given the state of governmental chaos in this nation. And truly the method itself proves quite the contrary on some reflection. But let's proceed with our investigation.

The various levels and spheres are further expounded on in yet another archival post which is somewhat instructional on this point. It is entitled, interestingly enough: Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. As the title would lead us to believe, the point of this particular post is to expand upon Mr. Tams's formal introduction of the idea of Balanced Government as a means to our common ends. And as becomes strikingly evident in reading this particular post in light of Tams's foundational piece, the concept is indeed expanded upon insofar as the Federalist approach to government reform is an extensive and a sweeping approach. By the term "sweeping" we intend here to say that it becomes fairly evident upon reflection that while other approaches to government reform tend to be rather, and by their very natures "limited" in their applications and extent of application (though quite the contrary in the extent of their effects), even by design, our approach which we've merely borrowed from the founders is rather unlimited in the extent of its application across the governmental spectrum thereby earning its very descriptive because, first and foremost, it possesses the unique quality of limitlessness; which is to say that honest adherents to the concept of reform will recognize that reforms of any kind, limited in application and well intended as they may be, are inherently far-reaching in the extensiveness of their effects. This is generally an undesirable characteristic possessed of "limited" methods of reform because it imposes upon the natural order of things, leaving to chance occurances that which a more discerning eye would most probably resign to the realm of dangerous and insidious doctrine. And herein is an ever-mindful flag to would-be reformers: any method of government reform that proposes, and/or imposes strict limitations to its designs and purposes, well intended and attractively clothed as it may be, is steeped in the deceptive influence of imbalance. That is; whether the strategy is shown to restrict government, or whether it possesses itself the restrictive characteristic, it is an inferior and a hopeless method of governmental reform. It creates more problems than it cures, in other words, continuing the cycle of imbalance. Balance possesses no tendency to limit itself, except in the pace at which it displaces that of imbalance. And that is not properly a limitation on itself as much as it is a strict adherence to natural laws. This unlimited characteristic unique to balanced government, coupled with the double security of its natural tendency to slow, yet purposeful and decisive application, and its recognition of the cause-effect relationship, my friends, is what lends to balanced reform its most outstanding and superior aspects and qualities.

There exists a striking contrast between balanced reform and any limited method of reform. As to the latter, each and all of these have one common and inherent flaw which we've already identified - limited extent and applicability. As I said before, this is undesirable, deceptive, and insidious; it is odious to the very idea of reform itself. This common characteristic of limited approaches to reform in itself leads us to identify yet another flaw in such an approach - the dangers inherent in seeking changes applicable to singular aspects of the whole of government. These dangers are most evident in thier effects - that one aspect of government is subject to an attempt at alteration and improvement, while the remaining aspects are supposedly left unaltered and unaffected. This is simply an impossibility and therefore an imprudent, not to mention imbalanced, method of approach. As to the former, no such flaw, nor any such inherency exists. By the very nature of this method the whole of government undergoes simultaneous reform, slowly, methodically, and perhaps above all, peacefully.

Let us here pause to reflect that our condition is not yet a hopeless one. Many would argue differently, and to be candid, I've come real close to arguing that myself a time or two. I have good reason to believe we haven't degenerated to the depths of hopelessness, however. But one specific reason fits this context very well: This government and this People are not yet completely and utterly out of balance. Were that the case we would indeed be on the precipice. But that's not the case. There still exist under this system many remnants of balanced government, and many Americans who conduct themselves overall to accord with the principles of balance, yet their vital influence is anemic due to the effects of imbalance. And this, my friends, should be a source of great comfort to us as we seek to restore the principle of balance on those very remnants, and by and with the aid of those very souls. And incidentally, if we are to have any sense of urgency to our purposes, it must be to halt the degenerative process while remnants of balance still remain; while our most powerful asset (The People) remains in a state not altogether corrupted. For once we've lost those remnants, those structures and surviving institutions; those very souls, I can imagine nothing short of all out war to follow. We're a more imaginative people than that, are we not?

I will conclude this edition with one final thought on the balanced approach to government reform: Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. Deception itself is incidental to imbalance, not balance. It may well be that it's an actual product of imbalance. In some cases I think it truly is. There are few instances that my imagination can contrive of deception finding many havens under a truly balanced scenario. It may hide itself in the far corners, but it cannot survive long at the forefront. Under imbalance, however, not only is deception provided safe haven, it is actually encouraged and aided in its destructive tendencies. And as I said, in many cases it may well be an actual product of imbalance itself. In stark contrast to this, balance has no such tendencies. Where there is imbalance there is always deception in direct proportion to, and vice versa. Balance and imbalance are opposing forces. So too are those elements incidental to them. This very quality inherent to Balance is striking in its implications once balanced reform is underway. My friends, Balance itself is its own best security. Balance exposes deception where it lives and roots it out; it drives it to the far corners where remnants of imbalance (that which provides it succor) still survive. No; I have no utopian vision that the natural world under any circumstances can exist absolutely free from the evil of deception. On the other hand, I do not deny the connection between imbalance and deception.

Finally, as with other postings to this blog, we seek to find some common ground with other reform-minded individuals. We believe there are a great many untapped human resources out there who would agree with the idea and method of balanced reform were they familiar with its concepts. It is not our purpose to put a negative spin on, or to deligitimize any method of reform - most of us seek the same goal. Rather, our purpose, as with balance itself, is to expose inherent weaknesses and dangerous tendencies incidental to limited methods of reform. While it would be disingenuous to claim that we have no bias on the subject, it would be wrong not to expose the general weaknesses and dangers inherent to limited methods of reform as they become evident to us. We believe then that common ground lies in a balanced perspective on reform. The choice then is between balance and imbalance, and we hope to have herein offered some bit of clarity to the question.